510 CARNTVO RES: 
earry it on his shoulders, a luxury of which it is very fond. The dingo will follow 
nobody else but its owner.” 
In writing on the origin of the dingo, Prof. M‘Coy observes that its fossil 
remains are found, in certain of the superficial and cavern deposits of Australia, 
in association with those of a number of extinct species more or less closely allied 
to the Marsupials still inhabitmg the country. The introduction of the dingo—if 
introduced it really was—is thus carried back to the Pleistocene division of the 
Tertiary period ; but we believe we are right in saying that in some at least of the 
deposits in which its remains occur there is also evidence of the contemporary 
presence of man. If, indeed, in all the deposits in which dingo bones occur there 
were also indications of human presence, the introduction of the animal by human 
agency would present no difficulty; but it does not appear that such is the case. 
Domestic Dogs (Canis faniliaris). 
Although many different views have been and still are entertained as to the 
mutual relationship and origin of the various breeds of domestic dogs, authorities 
are agreed that primitively the whole of them were derived either from wolves 
or jackals, or from both together. Whether, however, the origin has been a single 
one, that is to say, whether all domestic dogs were derived from one particular 
species of wolf or from a single species of jackal, or whether they are a product 
of the crossing of two or more distinct races, independently derived from as many 
wild stocks, is still an open question, and one indeed which is likely to remain 
undecided. Our own opinion inclines, however, towards the view of the multiple 
origin of the domestic dog; but even if its origin be single there can be little 
doubt that such an original domesticated breed has subsequently received extensive 
crossing with wild species other than the one from which it originally sprang. 
That domestic dogs trace their origin to wolves or jackals, or both together, 
and not to foxes, is evident from the structure of their skulls; and that the 
domesticated races are not descended from the wild dogs of Asia, is evident from 
the latter having one molar tooth less in the lower jaw than is the case with the 
other members of the genus. Additional testimony that the foxes have nothing 
to do with the origin of the domestic dogs is afforded by Mr. Bartlett, who writes 
that he has never met with a well-authenticated instance of a hybrid between a 
fox and a dog, notwithstanding numerous specimens of supposed hybrids of this 
sort, which from time to time have been brought to his notice. Since this was 
written there has, however, been some evidence published in Land and Water, to 
the effect that these animals may occasionally cross. 
The different breeds of domestic dogs present variations far greater, both as 
regards size and form, than those between any wild members of the canine family. 
Great as these differences undoubtedly are, they are to some extent paralleled 
among the various breeds of domestic pigeons an‘ fowls, the former of which are 
definitely known to have originated from a single wild stock. But, since dogs of 
very different breeds freely cross with one another, and the resulting progeny is 
perfectly fertile, there can be no difficulty in regarding all the domesticated races 
as now constituting a single species. The fact that at the earliest historical 
